My kingdom for words without n “”.

I hesistte to type the following not leest of which becuse my “” doesn’t work nymore — hsn’t worked for while ctully. But the min point is tht I would like to’ve llowed my previous entry — contribution filed under my estblished cricturistion ctigory (more employed recently due to the forementioned lost “” issue) — to stnd on its own, s ny (in)decent visul rt should do. Not tht I’m climing to be n rtist, y’understnd.

To the point in question: Should not the Kool-id meme be restricted to the likes of the president’s cmpign bck in ’08, or for the one underwy from the folks Feeling the Berning, or for the current Trump kyfbe even?

Surely the generl tone from the Hills coterie does not fit the generic mood of tht of Kool-id drinkers, especilly given the cleer & present contrst w/ tht from the Witnesses for the Sentor from Vermont, who echo the requisite enthusism inherent to true believers… much more so thn the vile, violent would-be reelism coming out of Cmp Clinton?

Well, the point of my c@rtoon, obvious even now I think in the still imge, is tht the potion-peddler is emerging from the cmpign logo. The timing of the emergence is key: Concurrent to the @nti-Trump mood’s build-up, more & more converts come to creed Clinton. Despite the neophytes’ insistence they’re only counter-Trump, if they’re buying into the notion he must be stopped first & foremost, then they’re tipping tht pitcher. Holding their noses they must, yet still swllowing the poison.

Of course, hovering over- or clicking the picture triggers the injection-y motion & common comix fun which reelly m@ke it go…

Kyfbe Swet – 2016

…and now back to our regularly scheduled programming (and the extra effort it entails on my part)…


Personal Preferences: How small you like your Sundae?

These settings, these bookmarks, these dog-ears, the names in your address book & their contact lists and the interests of all those people your friends’ acquaintances & acquaintances’ friends are familiar with should in theory introduce you to new ideas.

But, if you’re normal, your interest is not really new ideas. The creepy thing is, you have more interest in common with the targeted advertisements that land in your lap or, if you’re the ultra-modern happy consumer, find in your hand.

We think we’re inundated with information, overwhelmed by it, and in a way we are, have always been. But converse to the concept of overwhelming modern media, the technological methods of information distribution & communication more mirror the time-tested human method of filtering out what isn’t of interest, or makes us uncomfortable.

The distressing realities really are in plain sight, in spite of all the sophistication, neurological and algorithmic, no outside manipulation by evil conspirators is needed to hide them. We hide them ourselves with our personal preferences. The most radically discerning and least obstinate of us — despite even the most open-minded intake — would nevertheless require a random act of fate to stumble upon an unusual bit of information, a nugget of truth, the possible existence of which we’ve never even considered considering.

While outside manipulation most certainly exists, we conspire against ourselves to keep ourselves narrow-minded. Our new sophisticated tech and method of control merely mirror that tact.


Let’s say media is a fish. Let’s say, further, that a certain fellow’s central thesis is that the fish has a certain kind of skeletal structure. You hear this elucidated and summarized; it sounds quite simple enough. Are you interested in finding out what that structure is? You ask someone vaguely familiar with this fellow’s thesis, and she tells you that it’s really quite complicated, too much so, in fact, for the skeletal structure of the fish to be what the fellow says it is.

Then, by some bizarre twist of fate, you hear someone else talking about the theory of the fish’s structure and they say that it is really quite simple, that the structure of the skeleton is easy to observe and understand when given the basic introduction.

So you bite into the fish, as it were, and are a convert. You flock to every discussion about this fellow & his theory and gravitate toward anything reminiscent and keep a keen eye out for what the fellow himself might have to say about the modern state of affairs.

You adjust your scope to the true skeletal structure of the fish. Occasionally, when you venture into old territory and a mainstream presentation of the latest goings on, you find yourself frustrated that the middling consumer cannot see the fish as you do. But then a friend reminds you that even with your inquiring mind, you had required serendipity and instruction. Of course.

So you take it upon yourself to patiently educate everyone you encounter, referencing rants to the choir you’d heard in places you once had no idea existed.

Finally, you are so queued into this stuff that one day you happen upon a reference highlighting that somebody is badmouthing your professor hero.

Wait ’til you see what happens next.


There are spectra of outlook — thought political, philosophical, otherwise scientific — you will never catch wind of, though they’re there, in massive number, both in tight-to-loose-knit groupings, or bits never having breathed the same air.

This is not “every conceivable idea or position” because there are so many more than that, conceivable positions as they are, regulated by fabricated dichotomies: left and right, religious and scientific, public and private.

These minds cannot conceive of a reality beyond yin and yang.

To illustrate, let’s say there is a university professor who is mostly unknown to the larger population, more known to the world of media criticism and still more known to the world of political left-ishivism. Now, media critics largely consider this professor to be radical, and when they go on television programs and his name comes up, it is in that context. The tv hosts rarely recognize his name, though they have plenty of colleagues who have had him on their programs.

As a matter of fact, this professor has turned up on enough mainstream regional and national media outlets and appeared enough in the press, both as subject and author, that there is no dearth of media consumer who might believe him somewhat of a celebrity, a famous figure, sometimes making a relative qualification, sometimes not. Yet the professor is relatively unknown.

This obscurity alone would make it easy to criticize his marginalized philosophy on the function of the corporate media, if the philosophy were anything but demonstrably not present in everyday media discourse.


Applying a specific version of media criticism to those who would champion the same sounds reasonable, yet it offends those for whom it should represent truth. Instead of respectfully applying the idea, we are told, in not very clearly defined terms, that it is the icon that must be respected, not the idea.

They are not set to seek the truth, but those who might have told it.

Much criticism of criticism takes place within the self-constraints of the left-right paradigm. Smears of “leftier than thou” are tossed about as a way to somehow explain the flaw of a viewpoint without so much as observing the point of view or taking on the idea.

Comparatives are really quite unhelpful as attributes, unless your goal is limited thinking. At least the word “purist” as a put-down has an implicit connotation, unlike the view from the left or the right. It says that you’re obstinate, unwilling to compromise on a particular issue or set of beliefs. But in another sense, one’s purist is another’s person with principles. Not that the latter hasn’t been used mockingly when convenient.

If you haven’t been exposed to thought in a spectrum foreign to your own, you can’t count on discovering where to begin. You’d have as great a chance at understanding what is meant by the following inside joke:

“You can’t swing a dead cat without striking a soldier saving a small child.”

When the idea in that sentence rises to the level of notional – upon hearing that it is a reference to a statue honoring a military figure – comprehension still confronts an entire life’s conditioning that filters it out.

Now here might be a place for me to cite a specific case related to the previous explicative example, but I wonder, still, what it would matter. How much it challenges one’s thinking depends on one’s thinking at all in this section of the spectrum. Before that can happen, one must in all likelihood have been exposed to the idea in order to think it. Then, after that’s sunk in, to apply that same critical analysis to the subsequent thinking of one of the people who helped originate the analysis.

So here I reveal the commentary on the statue with a link to the link, not as centrally focused on the professor of the new fish skeleton, in favor of getting there by way of an analysis of a brand of pop.

For at the end of the day, you can lead a horse to water, but that won’t make it recognize “a clear eyed, even radical, assessment of all that’s wrong in the world coexisting with acquiescence in oligarch-approved methods for putting things right, no matter how often and resoundingly these methods fail”.

But who knows? If you get through those, maybe it would be better to get the next point by passing the professor.

That’s three links in today’s Sunday Paper, slightly aged but relevant, if you are so inclined.

In Augur al Don

After a surprisingly solemn & uneventful recitation of his oath of office, the freshly minted president took the few short steps down-dais toward the gathered guests, but rather than assume the normal position for the inaugural address, he edged farther forward and stood to the left of the lectern staring straight ahead, his line of sight leveled just above the heads of the seated onlookers. Then, as if he’d forgotten, he reached over to his right and wheeled a small cart from behind the podium.On the cart sat an old machine, about hip high. The president gingerly positioned some sort of current-collection lever onto a horizontally spinning wheel atop the device and, as the machine began to emit music, circulating the iconic tune, Proclamation from The Triumphant Savior of the Order of Animated Rodentia, he resumed his former posture, hands to his sides.

Click the image to see what happened next!

Der Kaufmann von New York – 2016

In the original conception of the above scenario, my friend Uwe imagined that the Don would peel off his mask revealing his true identity, proving once and for all that Andy Kaufman was indeed alive and had hoaxed us as he’d never hoaxed before.

Inclined to think that one mask is never enough, my embellishment entails a removal of masks in succession: respectively, Kaufman reveals he’s Ronald Reagan, Reagan reveals he’s Richard Nixon, and Tricky pulls off his Nixon mask to unveil the actual victor of the contest, garnerer of 269 electoral votes, who managed to get picked by the House of Representatives with the narrowest margin allowable, a vote that had not taken place since John Quincy Adams forged ahead of Andrew Jackson in the still adolescent nineteenth century.

The new president, who’d lobbied the House to snatch the requisite twenty-six state delegations, turned out not to be the author of Art of the Deal, but none other than his opponent in the Electoral Math Contest of Two-Thousand and Sixteen, Hillary Rodham (from circa 1975, if you can imagine such a thing).

Dass Homeland in Berlin gedreht worden ist?

Dass Homeland in Berlin gedreht worden ist?Ein Fernsehprogramm kommt noch besser in Deutschland an — ein Programm des dargestellten Realität. Dementsprechend wird das Dargestellten gern gesehen und positiver aufgenommen.

Dass das Dargestellten noch besser in Deutschland ankommt?

Trotz klar Defizite des Dargestellten, was rechtmäßige Vorgehensweisen von Geheimdienste betrifft —, und dass vordergründig eine befriedigende aufgelöste Schauspielspannung von fragwürdigen Auffassung gegenüber Interessen eines Volkes abhängt, vom Volk dieser Erde ganz zu schweigen, und trotz Einsetzung von Menschen die, wie dargestellt, wenn auch einmal in der Lage einen Hauch von Moral erkennen zu können, immer zu Menschenrechtsverletzer und Mörder wird, im Dienst von nicht mehr als hohlen Phrasen, die wiederholt in Drehbücher auftauchen wie bei Politplapperei, tatsächlich im Dienst von einer über dem Gesetzt stehenden Oligarchie — wird die echte CIA als eine alles in allem notwendige Mittel kontra das Böse auch noch von Deutschglotzern geschluckt.

Dass Homeland in Berlin gedreht worden ist, heißt, dass sich die einzige Folgenanalyse dieses Programms in den Metropole-Medien um Umsatz handelt.

Stalinallee, Berlin-Friedrichshain 1960 >cursor over> Karl-Marx-Allee 2016

Karl-Marx-Allee, Berlin-Friedrichshain 2016


Defeating Anyone

Let’s look at how and why what matters most is what is missing from what is said. At its most effective, propaganda is implied all around the mass perceptual margins.This journalist for The Guardian — let’s call her, Deborah Orr — has written an opinion piece meant to reveal to the reading public one struggle of responsible editorial decision making. The subject involves an already widely published, unsettling photograph of two victims of the recent attack at the Brussels airport.

Ms. Orr is attempting to wrestle with the idea that, in publishing the photograph, news outlets could be disseminating the objective of terrorism. It is a safe bet that the spreading of fear is a textbook definition of the word. By distributing the photo, one would be distributing terror, so the logic. This is a fair enough part of her reasonable discussion of journalistic ethics.

In a paragraph examining the subject of the photo, she speaks of the empathy that such images invite, which leads the reader to where her claimed crux of the conflict resides:

“This could happen to anyone.” Five words that perfectly communicate the message of terrorism.

When “anyone” — which I take to mean “even me or someone close to me” — can be directly effected, then terrorism has delivered its message. It’s safe to say, then, that if I could be directly effected, it = terrorism.

Conversely, “it cannot happen to me” = “not terrorism”. Or, at least, something that cannot happen to me does not deliver its message. Like, say, NATO explosions: Wherever they happen, they do not happen to me. I do not have to fear NATO explosions. They are not terrorism or, anyway, do not communicate the message of terrorism.

But what if I do have to fear NATO explosions? What if I live somewhere where they could happen to anyone as far as I can see? Would not the fear of NATO explosions amount to being terrorized, whether or not that was the intended message?

I’ll tell you what the intended message of NATO explosions is for those of us anyones who do not have to fear them: “Don’t worry about it.” Especially when literally hours after what happened in Brussels there’s a report from Washington by way of the Pentagon that a US raid in Syria had killed ISIS Number Two. (Do you remember during the Bush administration when all these second-in-command terrorist killings had become a running gag?)

It is precisely “anyone’s fear” that elite power bank on at the expense of victims whose fears their patrons and public care less about.

Anyway, the journalist’s professed unease about potentially spreading terrorist propaganda = ironic. I don’t mean to pick on Ms. Orr here. I don’t believe she is intentionally disseminating deadly department of defenses’ default positions regarding what is and isn’t terrorism. As a matter of fact, on the very day of the attacks in Brussels, she took a stab at reconciliation, if in terms vague enough that her message gets mired in her interpretation of, again, “the message of the jihadis”.

She opens with, rightfully, the point that bystanders somewhere in the world are victims every day — something people critical of seemingly exclusionary hashtag solidarity might appreciate (#jesuisbruxelles, sure, but what about #iamiraq or #iampakistan, etc.) — and comes to the conclusion that terrorism radicalizes all of us, and we-wonders how to deal with this without “sounding like a cringing apologist or a bellicose imperialist”, which is fuel for “demagogues and warlords”. She asks how we might “stand united against the manufacturers and retailers of hate and death and tragedy”.

So while likening racist demagogues to warlords, she unfortunately directs no explicit barb at the ones steering the rudder of the biggest war machine. It could be that she has employed “manufacturers and retailers” as an allusion to elite power, but her few short paragraphs focus enough on demagogues and warlords that it sounds like little more than a criticism of rhetoric. It is a criticism of the words of certain unsavory agents of state vs the actual brutal deeds of jihadis. This is demagoguery by omission.

As to the rhetoric, presidential campaign rhetoric in particular, it is only reasonable for racists and isolationist demagogues to agitate anyone whose tax money goes in historic mass to underpin by logic of warfare their fear and hatred of those who want to kill them. Even when they don’t. And while it’s all well and good for Democratic candidates, police chiefs, and MSNBC pundits to “destroy” Ted Cruz for his platform of profiling Muslims, they continue to support by implication the false notion that the war machine is not profiling Muslims.

Bernie Sanders, too, like the president before him, is using as anti-war cred supposed solidarity with American Muslims, opposition in 2002-03 to the war in Iraq, and the declaration that he wants to work with “Muslim nations” to defeat something loosely defined as ISIS. And like the two presidents before him, he is very status quo on the use of that military option abroad and what it is supposed to be accomplishing:

“Our goal in this issue is to destroy ISIS in coalition with Muslim nations on the ground, with the support of the US and other major powers. I think we can do that. We are making some progress. We have much more to do.”

Much more to do, indeed. It’s not over till it’s over.

Sanders’ claim that progress is being made is absurd enough. But what he doesn’t say is more important: The political vacuum in those nations is the goal of the war machine and its partners, whose only purpose is to expand their territorial wealth. That should be a message he would understand. Likely many of his supporters trade in the trope that he does understand, but just can’t say it if he wants to remain a viable candidate, let alone representative.

The fact that his immediate opponent can apologize for something she once held fast to — the destruction of Iraq — only to have continued the policies and expand the vacuum beyond that region should be an indication of what that certain something is that he will not say.

Until people of influence speak the words, they propagate another message. Whether they like it or not, it is the war profiteers’ message — or, rather, the terrorist propaganda of the war profiteer. And the propagation of terrorism.